Chester County judge reaffirms purchase price is only compensation of injured pet

By Michael P. Rellahan

Journal Register

WEST CHESTER - A Chester County Common Pleas Court judge has reaffirmed the value - at least in a legal sense - of a pet injured by another dog.

Judge Edward Griffith last Tuesday awarded an East Marlborough woman $350 to compensate for the injuries done in 2010 to her pet, Rosie, a 4-year-old bichon frise.

Rosie had been attacked at her home off Route 926 by a Great Dane belonging to John Ross, a Kennett resident.

The attack was serious enough that Katherine Fox, Rosie's owner, sought emergency medical attention and surgery from a veterinarian, according to Griffith's order. Rosie survived, but the medical bills sent to Fox totaled $7,442.

Fox filed suit against Ross in June 2011, attempting to recover the $7,442 she had spent in medical expenses to heal Rosie from the wounds that Ross' dog had inflicted. She maintained that the injuries were the result of Ross' negligence in maintaining control of his dog, which was much larger and more powerful than her pet.

In asserting her case, Fox's attorney, Francis Miller of West Chester, said Ross had violated the Pennsylvania Dog Law that requires all dog owners to keep their pets "formerly secured by means of a collar or chain" while off the owner's property.

But Ross, through his attorney, Mark Levitt of Montgomery County, argued that case law maintains that if Fox was entitled to any damages they would only be the amount of the actual value of the dog, not the amount of medical bills paid.

Griffith agreed with Ross.

Dogs, the judge wrote in a three-page opinion, are personal property under Pennsylvania law. As such, the recoverable cost for "repair" of personal property "cannot exceed its value," the judge wrote. Thus, Fox was entitled only to the $350 she said her dog had been purchased for.

"Any special value Rosie may hold for (Fox) is as a result of sentimentality," he wrote. "Damages are not based on sentimental attachment to personal property, but rather to measurable loss limited by the object's value."

Miller did not respond to a request for comment on the ruling. Levitt could not be reached for comment.

Griffith's ruling was not surprising. The law establishing the value of a pet was affirmed in a Chester County case involving a man and woman who were separating and in which the husband asserted custody rights for their dog. A state Superior Court panel ruled unambiguously that state law considers dogs and other pets to be personal property.

In another case, a Montgomery County family sought damages from a veterinarian in whose care their dog had died.

That law is similar to other states across the country. Most declare that pets are not the same as human loved ones, for which a claim of loss of companionship can be asserted.

But the ruling nevertheless goes counter to the arguments of some animal rights activists in other states who have argued that pets should be given special treatment under the law because of the unique brand of companionship they offer to their owners.

In San Francisco, the city council enacted a statute that declared those keeping pets to be "pet guardians" rather than "pet owners." In 1993, a state legislator in Colorado introduced a bill that would recognize pets as companions rather than property, and allow lawsuits with damages up to $100,000 for loss of companionship.

One Chester County attorney, explaining the case, noted that damages to personal property cannot exceed the value of the property. Thus, if you are in a car accident and the damages are $3,000 but the car is only worth $2,000, you are only due the $2,000.

"Rosie is more like a family heirloom than a car," said the attorney, who asked to remain anonymous because they were not party to the case. "I think of her as a painting, not one by a famous artist, but one by my Aunt Ruth."

If Aunt Ruth's painting is chewed on by a neighbor's Great Dane, would an owner get the price of restoration back in damages or the value of the painting, which is really just the value of the frame?

"I would only get the value of the painting," the attorney said. "Rosie's owner might be willing to pay more to repair Rosie than Rosie is worth, but that's because she is sentimentally attached to Rosie - at least that's what the law says."